Supreme Court’s decisive order has struck a fine balance between individual liberty and the right of the state to impose restrictions in the interest of public safety. A person had the right to refuse vaccination and although the government could “impose limits” on the rights of individuals, it had to be “reasonable and proportionate” to the extent, in this case, to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. Was. , The Court argued that existing evidence showed that unvaccinated individuals were not more likely to spread the virus and, therefore, could not deny people access to public places, services and resources. However, this was not a comprehensive order, and the government was within its rights to impose restrictions if infection rates increased and vaccines markedly reduced susceptibility to infection. Order underlies scientific logic and that epistemology remains difficult, the puzzle of science that generates new knowledge and challenges gained knowledge. Last year, this time, India was engulfed by another pandemic and there was also a shortage of vaccines. The central policy then was to rationalize access to vaccines as demand exceeded supply. While availability was a major factor, it was also because scientific evidence showed that vaccination prevented the progression of serious disease and the priority was to save lives.
About 75% of Indians have taken at least one vaccine shot and a good proportion have hybrid immunity. The transition is rampant despite new, highly permeable variants and the West’s experience, triple-shots, have all stymied demand for the booster in India. While last year, prior to the second wave, vaccine hesitancy was attributed to low uptake, it is now quite likely that people are exercising their option of waiting for more types of vaccine. The current attitude is projected into the ground reality that daily infections are low, despite the full opening up of normal life. In the first year of the pandemic, when vaccines were in their infancy and the virus was raging, the scientific knowledge was that a lock down and vaccination of two-thirds of the population would end the pandemic – an idea that has yet to come. , Thus, it may very well be that new types of vaccines (proven to prevent transmission) may change the understanding of the best possible means of preventing blight. The suppression of individual liberty for the greater good is perhaps one of the oldest and most difficult questions that democracy grapples with; And beyond orders, it is judicial logic that influences policy and future discourse when ground facts change. Officials must put scientific evidence at the fore when they make decisions that affect personal preference.